A
New Emergency
By
Githa Hariharan
The
Telegraph, India
24 August, 2003
Remember the Emergency? Not just the arrests,
or the trains running on time, but the sterilization and
vasectomy targets, the use of brute force, the reduction of people from
citizens with rights to cattle that must breed less? If we thought the
family planning fiasco of the Emergency was a grim but receding
memory, we obviously thought wrong. A recent report on the Andhra Pradesh
state population policy (The Hindu, July 27, 2003), described how a
Dalit sarpanch in a village has been disqualified from contesting panchayati
raj elections because he has more than two children. The sarpanchs
case is in the Andhra Pradesh high court. But meanwhile, all his children
are out of school because the states population policy recommends
that government facilities for education be withheld from the third
child onward. What remains unanswered is how the mans having more
than two children disqualifies his children from their right to education.
Or how it disqualifies him from his citizens right to be a panchayat
member.
As if to prove that
this report fell on wilfully deaf ears, soon after, the Supreme Court
upheld a Haryana law prohibiting anyone who has more than two children
from contesting for, or holding, the post of sarpanch or panch. The
court declared: Disqualification on the right to contest an election
for having more than two children does not contravene any fundamental
right, nor does it cross the limits of reasonability. Rather, it is
a disqualification conceptually devised in the national interest.
Who are the people
most affected by these developments? In a country where women can hardly
be said to be in control of their lives, to penalize them for the age
at which they were married, or the number of children they have, is
clearly to be grossly out of touch with reality. In a country where
we continue to have large numbers of people women, Dalits, adivasis,
the poor peripheral to the mainstream of citizens with life choices,
it must be a very peculiar sort of national interest that
devises new ways of keeping the marginalized out of political participation,
or the state benefits supposedly devised for them.
No one questions
the fact that all citizens should have the right to healthier lives
including safe means of contraception. But does tying together
family size and citizens rights with the iron chain of coercion
lead to either better health or better lives? Recently, in a lecture
in New Delhi, Amartya Sen pointed out that Keralas performance
in reducing the birth rate without coercion has been much
better than Chinas where a coercive one-child norm resulted in
a huge and disturbing imbalance in the sex ratio.
Not so long ago,
we heard, ad nauseam, about the dangers of the population bomb
more, it seemed sometimes, than the real bomb. When this people
bomb failed to explode, the international population control movement,
taking its cue from feminists, pushed for family planning services that
would address womens (and mens) reproductive needs and rights;
not control population. In line with this shift in understanding, the
Indian governments national population policy affirmed in the
year 2000 that the commitment of the government towards voluntary
and informed choice and consent of citizens while availing of reproductive
health care services, and continuation of the target free approach in
administering family planning services.
The policy was translated
into a non-target oriented family welfare programme. There was to be
no more falling back on the usual incentives (that famous transistor
radio!) or the definitely less amusing disincentives. In other words,
the government made a commitment to respect human rights including
the freedom and dignity of women. But in a case of spectacular disharmony
between right and left hands, several state governments have announced
population policies that violate this commitment.
Take the case of
Andhra Pradesh, the state (or at least chief minister) with futuristic
ambitions. Apparently the future-friendly state is not particularly
in tune with recent ideas and findings on family planning programmes.
The state lists an astonishing series of incentives and disincentives.
At the community level, for instance, performance in the government
reproductive and child health programme, and rates of couple protection,
is to determine the construction of school buildings, public works,
and funding for rural development programmes. Educational concessions,
subsidies and promotions, and those still coveted government jobs are
to be restricted to those who restrict themselves to two children. And
those who accept terminal contraception methods are to be given preference
when it comes to allotment of surplus agricultural land, housing sites,
the benefits provided by the integrated rural development programme
to mention just a few examples.
Perhaps the most
eloquent scheme is one worthy of Sanjay Gandhis fantasies.
A lucky dip will give three couples from each district an
award of Rs 10,000 each. All they have to do to qualify for the lucky
dip is to be a couple who has adopted permanent contraception methods
after either one child, or two girl children. Or got a vasectomy after
a maximum of two children.
Andhra Pradesh,
unfortunately, is not unique. The population policies of Uttar Pradesh,
Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh do not allow those women who have more
than two children to contest elections to panchayati raj institutions.
And in a fine case of punishing the victim, those who were married before
the legal age of marriage are also disqualified from government jobs.
In response to these
legal and policy developments, a range of indignant
reactions has been heard from womens organizations that
have some idea of how real lives function, to the usual fundoo suspects.
Some of these worthies petitions actually argue that since Muslims
are allowed four wives, they should be allowed two children per wife.
Not surprisingly, these petitions have been thrown out of the window.
Unfortunately, so have far more rational reactions that do not pander
to the obsessions of any brand of fundoos. A number of health groups
and womens groups have, time and again, protested against these
features of state population policies. Given their day-to-day experience
of real peoples lives, they have argued that these disincentives
and incentives are not just anti-women. They are also loaded
against adivasis, Dalits, children and, of course, the poor in
general. In short, they violate what we perceive or almost all
of us perceive as democratic rights.
How does this obsessive
harking back to the two-child norm impinge on human rights? Large numbers
of women, Dalits, adivasis, and the poor precisely those sections
of our society who need to assert their right to political participation
cannot contest elections to panchayati raj institutions. The
field experience of womens groups has shown that the two-child
norm can lead to the desertion and abandonment of women and children,
or forced abortion. Providing further impetus for sex-selective abortions
will only help the already dismal child sex ratio deteriorate further.
It is fairly obvious that health and safe contraceptive services are
essential. But to propose punishment in a context of inequality
where women, Dalits, adivasis and other backward classes already bear
more of the countrys mortality load? The only possible aim of
such a move can be to widen inequalities, and increase the burden of
the already vulnerable.